Welcome to the British Farming Forum. The forum for agricultural discussion on all farming topics. You will have to register before you can
post. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The interesting, and in some ways sinister as well as highlighting how ignorant and narrow focused a jury is, is the fact that the jury reached their decision not on the scientific evidence but on the allegations that Monsanto/Bayer did not inform users that there was a risk element to the use of Glyphosate.

Two points emerge as regards this verdict

1. The lawyers acting for the affected party knew that there was no case to answer had they challenged on scientific data. They effectively looked for a loophole.
2. Complicated cases like this should not be judged by a jury as they are not competent to address or understand the facts as presented.

In any event the ridiculous size of the award only serves to undermine the credibility of the verdict.

I also noted that at the press interview after the verdict the gleeful winning lawyers sat in front of a 'sponsors' board similar to that use by football clubs in their post match interviews. It appears that many vested interest, and malicious, groups were bank rolling this case.

Using the logic of the 'ban roundup' cabal should water not be banned and added to the list of carcinogenic agents. It has in fact been responsible for far more deaths than ever roundup up has and there is no warning on the bottle or tap.